Author Topic: Correct position on the Novus Ordo Mass (Read 7533 times)

Caminus · « **Reply #30 on:** November 13, 2011, 12:12:03 PM »

If the claim that the traditional Roman rite, approved by authority and antiquity, could legitimately be suppressed holds, how much moreso the N.O.? If the ground is open to assert that authority is utlimately arbitrary and does not exist except for the common good, then one is forced to admit that an aberrant liturgy could coexist within the Church. The approbation of a few conciliar Popes holds no more weight than the Council itself. If a mere postulate, suggestion, wish or desire is not tantamount to a command or law, neither is a series of them. In the practical order, what precisely is the novus ordo liturgy anyway, since it was purposely designed to disintegrate and form indigenous rites upon contact with various cultures?

Caminus · « **Reply #31 on:** November 13, 2011, 12:22:36 PM »

Nishant, keep in mind the modus of the Council and the hierarchy, they have abdicated their authority for a different approach. This must always be remembered when analyzing these matters. Always try to keep a true and accurate perspective, apperances notwithstanding. The Popes of old taught with authority; their encyclicals formed a beautiful symphonic harmony. But the conciliar Popes, strike distinctly a sour note and do not teach with authority, they desire to dialogue, trade ideas, converse, express their hopes and aspirations, wishes and desires. Not only this, but they are terrible theologians, jurists and philosophers; entire pontificates spent on testing their vain theologizing and philosophizing. If they could seriously view sectarian liturgies with approval (because of the new philosophy of religion they have adopted), how much credibility to they really have viz. the Catholic liturgy?

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #32 on:** November 13, 2011, 04:19:38 PM »

Quote from: Nishant2011

doesn't the subsequent approval of all Popes including Benedict XVI, most especially and manifestly in his motu proprio Summorum Pontificuм seem to settle the issue once and for all?

No, that's not how it works. The Council of Trent says that whosoever dramatically changes the liturgy, "let him be anathema". So it's quite obvious by that Dogma that Paul VI excommunicated himself in promulgating such a sacreligious, un-Catholic liturgy. So while you say you are obliged to hold your view based on Catholic teaching, you are also obliged to hold the Catholic teaching that the Mass was never supposed to be overhauled, and that no priest of any rank, not even the Pope, could promulgate an entirely new liturgy.

Quote

I do not think "The Ordinary Form" fails to manifest with sufficient clarity the twin and inseparable character of the Mass as at once a sacrament and a sacrifice.

First of all, it's a lie to call the Novus Ordo the "Ordinary Form". If the Church made the Traditional Latin Mass the liturgy of the Church and said that this could never change, why then should we consider the New Mass to be the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite? Clearly this is contrary to Church teaching and is not a part of logical reasoning.

The New Mass is not, in fact, a sacrifice. It is not meant to re-enact the Death of Christ on the Cross. Rather, the New Mass resembles a meal, the Last Supper to be exact. For example, Communion in the hand (which, interestingly, even Benedict discourages). St. Thomas Aquinas said that only Consecrated Hands should touch the Eucharist. Yet, at the NO you have Eucharistic Ministers handing out the Body of Our Lord Jesus Christ and putting it in everyone's hands, as if it's a dorito chip. And speaking of it being the Body of Christ, they aren't allowed to say "This is the Body of Christ". They instead say "Body of Christ" which can imply that everyone is the Body of Christ. They also neglect to use a patten, which is very sacreligious. The Church has taught that Our Lord is present in even the smallest particle of the Sacred Host. And if the patten is not used, then crumbs may fall on the floor and Christ's Body is trampled on. As for the wine (which is turned into Our Lord's Blood during the Consecration), only the priest is supposed to drink it. The laypeople need not drink it because the Blood of Christ is also present in the Eucharist. But the promulgators of the NO knew they had to turn the Mass into a meal, so the lay people were thus allowed to drink from the Chalice as well. So, the New Mass does in fact fail to resemble a sacrifice. It instead resembles a meal.

Quote

I have read the famous "short, critical study on the New Mass" but I also heard that Cardinal Ottaviani himself was satisfied after one of Pope Paul VI's address regarding its doctrinal precision but called for an extensive catechesis to make sure the faithful understand the prayer and belief of the Church.

To my knowledge, Cardinal Ottaviani was never satisfied with the Novus Ordo Missae. Do you have proof for your statement? Otherwise it is hearsay.

DivaEl · « **Reply #33 on:** November 14, 2011, 04:00:42 AM »

Most people who recognize that the NO is invalid seem to assume that those attending it are simply receiving bread.

However, another possibility has occurred to me. What if the Freemasonically inspired NO ritual is actually confecting the body of Antichrist? :scratchchin:

After all, the Freemasons worship Satan, :devil2: and the Antichrist is Satan's offspring, which provides Satan with another way to ape God the Father.

So maybe the devil has inspired the apostate clergy to develop and institute a ritual that confects the body of Antichrist and distributes it to his dupes. This would also enable the Antichrist to more closely ape Christ. :detective:

And the more you receive the NO host, or Antihost, the more you are ingrafted into the Body of Antichrist and his diabolical kingdom. :shocked:

This may help to explain why even older adults who should know better are so clueless about what's really going on. They didn't care enough or bother to know enough to tell the difference between the real Mass and a counterfeit in the beginning and reject the counterfeit. And as a result, their minds are being clouded and their wills weakened by being more and more unified with Satan and the Antichrist at every NO Mass they attend. Their trance just gets deeper and deeper.

It's as if every NO Mass you attend etches the "666" deeper into your flesh. Many appear to have already reached the point of no return.

pax · « **Reply #34 on:** November 14, 2011, 06:56:51 AM »

One thing I know for sure: The inferior cannot judge the superior. There is no higher position for a human being to hold than Vicar of Christ. Therefore, only God Himself can judge the Vicar of Christ. In that regard, I will let God do His work, and I will do mine.

pax · « **Reply #35 on:** November 14, 2011, 06:59:09 AM »

Quote from: DivaEl

Most people who recognize that the NO is invalid seem to assume that those attending it are simply receiving bread.

However, another possibility has occurred to me. What if the Freemasonically inspired NO ritual is actually confecting the body of Antichrist? :scratchchin:

After all, the Freemasons worship Satan, :devil2: and the Antichrist is Satan's offspring, which provides Satan with another way to ape God the Father.

So maybe the devil has inspired the apostate clergy to develop and institute a ritual that confects the body of Antichrist and distributes it to his dupes. This would also enable the Antichrist to more closely ape Christ. :detective:

And the more you receive the NO host, or Antihost, the more you are ingrafted into the Body of Antichrist and his diabolical kingdom. :shocked:

This may help to explain why even older adults who should know better are so clueless about what's really going on. They didn't care enough or bother to know enough to tell the difference between the real Mass and a counterfeit in the beginning and reject the counterfeit. And as a result, their minds are being clouded and their wills weakened by being more and more unified with Satan and the Antichrist at every NO Mass they attend. Their trance just gets deeper and deeper.

It's as if every NO Mass you attend etches the "666" deeper into your flesh. Many appear to have already reached the point of no return.

That's funny! You had me going there for a second. I almost thought you were serious. Good one.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #36 on:** November 14, 2011, 08:56:54 AM »

Quote from: DivaEl

It's as if every NO Mass you attend etches the "666" deeper into your flesh. Many appear to have already reached the point of no return.

Funny you mention this, because the name "Novus Ordo" sounds Freemasonic. If you look on the back of a dollar bill, the words "Novus Ordo Seculorum" can be found.

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #37 on:** November 14, 2011, 06:45:25 PM »

Correct position on which Novus Ordo Mass?

The one in Latin ad Orientam with altar rails and incense?

or

The one mistranslated in the vernacular?

With CITH or without?

With Girl Altar Boys or without?

With heretical hymns or without?

With rock music or without?

With female lectors or without?

With DNC talking point homilies or without?

With the sign of peace or without?

No two NO's are ever alike. Like a box of chocolates, you never know what you're gonna get.

My response would be something like...

I do not like it with a song.
I do not like it short or long.
I do not like it holding hands.
I do not like it Sam I Am.

You guys can develop more verses....

LordPhan · « **Reply #38 on:** November 14, 2011, 10:12:01 PM »

Quote from: stevusmagnus

Correct position on which Novus Ordo Mass?

The one in Latin ad Orientam with altar rails and incense?

or

The one mistranslated in the vernacular?

With CITH or without?

With Girl Altar Boys or without?

With heretical hymns or without?

With rock music or without?

With female lectors or without?

With DNC talking point homilies or without?

With the sign of peace or without?

No two NO's are ever alike. Like a box of chocolates, you never know what you're gonna get.

My response would be something like...

I do not like it with a song.
I do not like it short or long.
I do not like it holding hands.
I do not like it Sam I Am.

You guys can develop more verses....

Thank you Stevus that made me laugh.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #39 on:** November 15, 2011, 09:34:27 AM »

Quote from: stevusmagnus

Correct position on which Novus Ordo Mass?

The one in Latin ad Orientam with altar rails and incense?

or

The one mistranslated in the vernacular?

With CITH or without?

With Girl Altar Boys or without?

With heretical hymns or without?

With rock music or without?

With female lectors or without?

With DNC talking point homilies or without?

With the sign of peace or without?

No two NO's are ever alike. Like a box of chocolates, you never know what you're gonna get.

My response would be something like...

I do not like it with a song.
I do not like it short or long.
I do not like it holding hands.
I do not like it Sam I Am.

You guys can develop more verses....

Thumbs up for that.

Stubborn · « **Reply #40 on:** November 16, 2011, 07:40:19 AM »

Quote from: Nishant2011

If the SSPX does in fact hold that participation in the Holy Sacrifice in the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite is objectively sinful, how do they reconcile this with the indefectibility of the Church? Is it possible that what the Church, our Mother, hands down to her faithful is corrupt and polluted, what she binds on earth, is not bound in heaven?

The New "mass" is not protected by the Church's indefectibilty.

Here, this snip is from A Theological Critique OF Rev. James F. Wathen, O.S.J's THE GREAT SACRILEGE by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Br. Alexis Bugnolo ends up agreeing with Fr. Wathen and admits that the NOM is not a liturgical norm and it is not protected by the Church’s infallibility or indefectibility.

.........The general interpretative principle that a universal disciplinary decree is protected from error, on account of the Church’s indefectibility, is based on its precise nature both as a universal decree and as an exercise of the infallible Ordinary or Extraordinary Magisterium.

Because inasmuch as the decree, even if it virtually teaches in regard to some matter of faith or morals, does not fulfill the other conditions for infallibility established by Pastor Aeternus of Vatican I, it fails to represent that form of the exercise of the Magisterium of the Church which Christ willed to be protected from error.

In addition, the Missale Romanum of Paul VI clearly was not a universal norm, because Paul VI never formally made it such, never formally derogated the Old Rite, granted a general exemption for England to use the liturgy of 1965, and did not require the non-Roman Rite Churches in communion with the Apostolic See to use it. Clearly then, it was not a universal decree, nor did it rise to the level of that form of liturgical norm, which expressly confirmed by Trent and the decree of St. Pius V, is expressly recognized as free from error and valid for all times.

The constant changes made to the Missal and its translations, norms, rubrics, etc., clarifies that it was never intended to be a stable, liturgical form. For all these reasons, since the very nature of infallibility and indefectibility requires a stable adherence to the deposit of the faith, the Missale Romanum of Paul VI, cannot be considered a universal liturgical norm that is protected by the Church’s infallibility or indefectibility. And if not, then it is capable of containing errors, which while not formally heretical, to the extent that it did not intended to contradict or abrogate formally any dogma of the faith, could contain materially grave errors, even those which could not otherwise be founded but upon heresy; and hence virtually could be as detrimental to the Faith and the Church as something formally heretical. As for the rest of the merits of the argument I present in this article, I leave them to be, as a historical testament to my own imperfect understanding of the issues.

Stubborn · « **Reply #41 on:** November 16, 2011, 07:42:52 AM »

Quote from: stevusmagnus

Correct position on which Novus Ordo Mass?

The one in Latin ad Orientam with altar rails and incense?

or

The one mistranslated in the vernacular?

With CITH or without?

With Girl Altar Boys or without?

With heretical hymns or without?

With rock music or without?

With female lectors or without?

With DNC talking point homilies or without?

With the sign of peace or without?

No two NO's are ever alike. Like a box of chocolates, you never know what you're gonna get.

My response would be something like...

I do not like it with a song.
I do not like it short or long.
I do not like it holding hands.
I do not like it Sam I Am.

You guys can develop more verses....

LOL

DivaEl · « **Reply #42 on:** November 20, 2011, 06:01:07 PM »

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

Quote from: DivaEl
It's as if every NO Mass you attend etches the "666" deeper into your flesh. Many appear to have already reached the point of no return.

Funny you mention this, because the name "Novus Ordo" sounds Freemasonic. If you look on the back of a dollar bill, the words "Novus Ordo Seculorum" can be found.

Thanks for making that additional point for me, SS.

And thanks, pax, for supporting my post as well.

There's nothing like being mocked by a guy whose avatar is one of the Three Stooges dressed up like an Orthodox Jєω to give true gravitas to a post supporting traditional Catholicism vs. the Novus Ordo!

Nishant · « **Reply #43 on:** November 21, 2011, 12:21:18 PM »

Caminus, you're right in that Popes these days seem rarely if ever to invoke their Apostolic authority, but I'm a little skeptical of this position being reduced to a sort of crypto-sedevacantism which would insist that the Pope cannot bind us even if he clearly intends to. This is the language used,

Quote

Following the insistent prayers of these faithful, long deliberated upon by our predecessor John Paul II, and after having listened to the views of the Cardinal Fathers of the Consistory of 22 March 2006, having reflected deeply upon all aspects of the question, invoked the Holy Spirit and trusting in the help of God, with these Apostolic Letters we establish the following:

Quote

If the claim that the traditional Roman rite, approved by authority and antiquity, could legitimately be suppressed holds, how much moreso the N.O.?

Well, concerning the traditional Rite, Pope Benedict says it was "in principle, always permitted".

Quote

If the ground is open to assert that authority is utlimately arbitrary and does not exist except for the common good

I'm not saying that authority is arbitrary. I'm saying that the Church can loose what the Church has bound. The Church binds her faithful to obedience, she does not bind herself for the future. It would be impossible to imagine otherwise. Trent says, "this power has ever been in the Church, that, in the dispensation of the sacraments, their substance being untouched, it may ordain,--or change, what things soever it may judge most expedient, for the profit of those who receive, or for the veneration of the said sacraments, according to the difference of circuмstances, times, and places."

Quote

The approbation of a few conciliar Popes holds no more weight than the Council itself.

I agree with you on the Council and have said so. It did not bind anyone to anything, and defined no new dogma at all. I also do not deny that the last 50 years have been tragic to the Church, and the grandeur of the Papacy has been unwittingly, perhaps, self-abased.

The only real place I disagree with you, is as I said, and I think other traditional orders like the FSSP disagree with the SSPX, is in the living Magisterium, that Christ will protect it through weak Popes, and speak decisively at the right time, the faith of Peter will not fail, the gates of hell shall not prevail, according to the divine promise. So, yes, the Council did not in fact bind anything, but if, in future, the Church does bind something, even if there is a weak Pope at the time, I will submit to it. I believe it is an instance of that here.

Quote

If a mere postulate, suggestion, wish or desire is not tantamount to a command or law, neither is a series of them.

But this is not a suggestion, it does not have the language of a suggestion. It seems clearly intended to be a decisive act of the Magisterium to close the question.

Quote

In the practical order, what precisely is the novus ordo liturgy anyway, since it was purposely designed to disintegrate and form indigenous rites upon contact with various cultures?

I mean only the 1970 Latin Missal. The prudence of the decision may be reasonably questioned, but I do not believe I can hold any longer, following this statement by the Holy See, that this Mass, even with the misguided intended "simplifications" or whatever can actually become deficient for effecting the grace it signifies or be sinful or an occasion of sin.

Nishant · « **Reply #44 on:** November 21, 2011, 12:36:22 PM »

Spiritus,

Quote

No, that's not how it works. The Council of Trent says that whosoever dramatically changes the liturgy, "let him be anathema".

So why aren't all Popes and Bishops and priests and even laymen since the insertion of the Filioque likewise anathematized or deposed? By the way, slightly off topic, I'm curious, would the sedevacantism you espouse allow for such an eventuality? I mean, if we're in an extended interregnum, as unless I'm mistaken, you seem clearly to think, is there any limits on how long that interregnum could be, theoretically? A hundred years? 500?

Besides, it says nothing of "dramatically". Interpreted simplistically, it would apply to every Pope who has ever made a minor change since then, including I believe Pope St.Pius V himself, which is absurd. It even penalizes by such temporal sanctions as fines the individual transgressing priests, and clearly does not bind the Church as a body, or the Pope who can always act on her behalf.

Quote

First of all, it's a lie to call the Novus Ordo the "Ordinary Form".

But it is the term the Magisterium uses, rather than "Novus Ordo".

Quote

The New Mass is not, in fact, a sacrifice.

From the text:

Quote

Look, we pray, upon the oblation of your Church, and, recognizingthe sacrificial Victim by whose death you willed to reconcile us to yourself, grant that we, who are nourished by the Body and Bloodof your Son and filled with his Holy Spirit, may become one body, one spirit in Christ.

This statement so-often repeated, simply isn't true. Have you read Pope Paul VI's Encyclical "Mysterium Fidei" on the subject? It is sufficiently orthodox, maintains transubstantiation, Eucharistic adoration, and the true nature of the Eucharist as both sacrament and sacrifice, and quotes the Fathers as well on the subject.

I fully share your approbation for the horrendous abuses that have crept in, but what do they prove about the Mass itself? No more than abuses of Indulgences proved about them.

Quote

To my knowledge, Cardinal Ottaviani was never satisfied with the Novus Ordo Missae. Do you have proof for your statement? Otherwise it is hearsay.

The statement was:

Quote

"I have rejoiced profoundly to read the Discourse by the Holy Father on the question of the new Ordo Missae, and especially the doctrinal precisions contained in his discourses at the public Audiences of November 19 and 26, after which I believe, no one can any longer be genuinely scandalized. As for the rest, a prudent and intelligent catechesis must be undertaken to solve some legitimate perplexities which the text is capable of arousing. In this sense I wish your "Doctrinal Note" and the activity of the Militia Sanctae Mariae wide diffusion and success."

Stubborn,

Quote

The New "mass" is not protected by the Church's indefectibilty.

I read the analysis, and it was interesting. If the Church has not seemed to officially clarify the matter, I might be of a different mind on the subject. Do you have a reason as to why I might be mistaken in understanding Summorum Pontificuм?